Re: Beating a dead horse

["William A. Mahaffey III" <wam%hiwaay.net@localhost>]

On 11/25/15 14:26, Swift Griggs wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Robert Elz wrote:
> > FFS is OK on NetBSD-7 (not sure about LFS or others, never tried 
> > them). Raidframe might be (haven't looked) but both cgd and ccd are a 
> > mess...
>
> I wonder if the same is true for LVM? Since it's relatively new, 
> perhaps some of these issues were worked out in a more "modern" way 
> that would properly take advantage of the NetBSD-7 kernel.
>
> Personally, as a long-time sysadmin, having LVM fully implemented is a 
> huge plus (especially when it fully integrates RAID features without 
> another abstraction layer to deal with). I know that RAIDFrame is 
> capable and I've used it myself, but I see LVM as being one of the 
> (very) few design-by-committee projects that ever amounted to squat. 
> Perhaps they should have involved ISO or IEEE to properly ruin it. 
> Nonetheless, irrespective of my warm fuzzy coming from familiarity or 
> actual design wisdom, LVM makes a lot of sense to me, if for no other 
> reason than I get to shorten the mental-linked-list of block storage 
> management tools like RAIDFrame, GEOM, VxVM, XVM, LVM, SVM, ZFS, 
> BTRFS, AdvFS, LSM, etc.... Being a support engineer for many multiple 
> flavors of Unix ... I get around.
>
>
> -Swift


While LVM may have been designed by committee, I am pretty sure it was 
originally an SGI committee, & seems pretty good to me as well. All of 
my old SGI stuff worked like clockwork as long as it functioned (snif ....).


--

	William A. Mahaffey III

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

	"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
	 ever devised by man."
                           -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.